757
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago

3rd party voters: "I'm not voting for Harris until she condemns the Gaza war!"

Harris: *says she condemns the Gaza war*

3rd party voters: *desperate scrambling sounds to find something else to be a single issue contrarian*


I'm really hoping I'm wrong about that, but I'm seeing it on this thread.

[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 32 points 1 month ago

Have you been to a protest or talked to pro-Palestinian voices. The demand has always been to stop weapons shipments to Israel, even before October 7th. This isn't moving the goal posts, the goal posts have been there for decades, it's just both parties have and continue to ignore them.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Strawmen are the only kind of people they have rebuttals to, not any actual thinking humans.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 month ago

I mean for context something like 70 million early voters already cast their ballot, so this quite literally cannot change their vote and that number is roughly half of the entire votes cast the entire last election. So in all likelihood, roughly half the people you're mad at can't react at all because of how long she waited.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Third-party voters as a whole don't matter nearly as much as the handful of Muslims in Michigan that this message is directed towards. Also, this message is not significantly different than what she's been saying since the DNC. Her big misstep wasn't her messaging on Gaza; it was ignoring the Uncommitted leaders entirely.

[-] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Yep, the Democrats didn't even allow a Palestinian to speak at the DNC, but they had how many Republican politicians come on stage?

The Democrats have ignored the Muslim/Arab community almost entirely this election cycle, and are now freaking out because their Status-Quo policy decisions might have cost them the election.

And when you point this out on Lemmy, you're screamed at for being a Trump supporter and wanting Gaza leveled. No, we just wanted our party leadership to reflect the wants of the majority of their constituents for once.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Exactly. The progressive base is somehow never big enough to win the Democrats the election, but if they complain at all about the party or the candidate, they immediately become large enough to cost the Democrats the election.

[sigh]...that being said, if you haven't already, please go vote for Kamala today, especially if you live in a swing state.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

They do not want to condemn the war.

The want to end the genocide.

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Empty rhetoric about "war" has never been a worthwhile "goalpost". We've had more than a year of that already from genocide joe.

It's always been about ending the genocide and reversing zionism more generally.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No, the goal post has always been that she'll enforce America's laws regarding weapon shipments until israel behaves. This is not that. This 'ill continue the Biden policy of committing a genocide and periodically send sternly worded letters that do nothing.'.followed by 'israel has a right to defend itself' platitudes.

Harris needs to commit. And this is not that. No goal posts have been moved. Shes trotted out some tokens and said the same thing shes said every time.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

Debunking the strawman is not moving the goalpost.

You do not get to set the demands for other voters. And then pretend they have been met when they are clearly not.

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
757 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19244 readers
3742 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS